You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Greenberg briefly traces the struggle for object relations theory to gain acceptance in the mainstream of psychoanalytic thought, using an instinct theory metaphor and comparing it to an unconscious wish striving to overcome repression. He identifies the central conflict between instinct theory and object relations theory as lying in the question of whether the object is defined in any way except as the object of sexual and aggressive drive discharge. Pointing to the inadequacy of the dual instinct theory to explain the intricacies of human relationships, he tries to outline a conceptual structure to take its place. He next discusses each author's contribution to this new conceptual system and suggests that four of the five are not merely adding object relations theory to drive theory, but are offering a new drive theory. “The implicit consensus is that a new drive theory is needed, and that it can be found in something that covers the ground once covered by Freud's ego instincts.” Greenberg does not feel that it is possible to construct a theory without something similar to Freud's drives, but that in these papers it is implicit that the drive for self-integrity is superordinate to any other. He continues by identifying two problems he sees with the new drive theory: first, that conflict is now with the object, caused by the object; and, second, that the theory does not address noninvolvement with the object. He discusses these theoretical problems with some clear clinical examples and in the spirit of welcoming the shift to a more comprehensive conceptual framework but one which must undergo continual scientific scrutiny.